- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:24:13 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-sparql-dev <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B9540CD.30806@w3.org>
Richard, I think I agree with everything you say: indeed, I do not expect @rev to be very widely used. For most of the cases @rel is working. But there are cases when @rev _is_ very handy and useful. There is a difference between an attribute that is not widely used but occasionally very useful and removing that attribute altogether. I think that DanC's question was about the latter... Ivan On 2010-3-8 18:10 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > My €0.02: I find @rev handy sometimes because it allows me to be clever > and reduce markup. But if @rev didn't exist, then I could cope by > changing the structure of the markup to something a bit more verbose > (but probably easier to understand -- it's easy to be too clever, as > Bijan observed). > > I think that there will be strong pressures on vocabularies to be > RDFa-friendly, and that most vocabularies of the future will be designed > so that typical markup scenarios can be solved without @rev. > > I see @rev as a band-aid. Using vocabularies that haven't been optimised > for RDFa is less painful if you have @rev. With optimised vocabularies, > it will be rarely or never used. > > (What do I mean by “optimised”? I don't mean vocabularies with lots of > inverses. I mean vocabularies where each property has the direction that > occurs naturally in page markup. I think that almost all relationships > have such a “natural” direction if used in web pages. Admittedly that's > conjecture.) > > Best, > Richard > > > On 8 Mar 2010, at 16:41, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> >> >> On 2010-3-8 16:00 , Dan Connolly wrote: >>> I just ran into this message again from an HTML 5 validator: >>> >>> "The rev attribute on the a element is obsolete. Use the rel attribute >>> instead, with a term having the opposite meaning." >>> >>> This seems to encourage the pattern of minting an inverse >>> for each property, a la: >>> >>> abridgement >>> abridgementOf >>> -- http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html >>> >> >> From an RDFa point of view, if I am an author, I consider using a >> specific vocabulary and I use the attributes as they are defined. >> Authors cannot be expected to mint additional predicates on the fly if >> those are not defined; this is way too much for many of them anyway. >> >>> Doesn't that just gum up the works when doing SPARQL queries? Which >>> do you query for, abridgement or abridgementOf? Or do you use >>> a UNION? >>> >>> It's one thing to discover, post-hoc, that two properties are >>> inverses of each other, and to write down that relationship. >>> But to make up these inverse-aliases by choice seems like >>> a big waste, to me. >>> (see also http://esw.w3.org/topic/HasPropertyOf bit on inverses and >>> aliases) >>> >>> How are SPARQL users dealing with this in practice? >>> >>> >>> Meanwhile, RDF/XML doesn't have syntax for inverting a relationship >>> (a la is/of in N3), and there's data that says rev="..." is >>> too confusing for HTML authors to use. >>> >> >> I am not sure RDF/XML is relevant. RDF/XML gives you different ways of >> expressing triples, so one can encode anything freely, there is no real >> constraint. In the case of RDFa there is an additional constraint that >> one wants to follow the HTML structure to include the presentation >> content. >> >> It is of course possible, in RDFa to express everything with @rel only >> but, in some cases, the missing @rev makes it very convoluted. >> >>> "The short answer is unfortunately "NO". Use of "rev" SHOULD be >>> avoided." >>> -- http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-faq >>> "the only <link rev=""> link to appear is rev="made" (to point to the >>> author's page) — and the latter is not used that much more than the more >>> sensible rel="author". Also, ironically, just off the graph in position >>> 21 is rel="made", probably showing that the distinction between rel and >>> rev may be too subtle for many authors." >>> -- http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html >>> >>> >>> Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away? >>> Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share? >>> >> >> I think Damian has just posted a good use case example. >> >> Another example is >> >> <img rev="foaf:depiction" >> resource="http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me" >> src="http://www.ivan-herman.net/Images/me2003-small.png"/> >> >> That gives me >> >> <http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me> >> foaf:depiction <http://www.ivan-herman.net/Images/me2003-small.png> . >> >> Without a @rev, I have to add a new hierarchy to do the same: >> >> <div about="http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me" rel="foaf:depiction"> >> <img src="http://www.ivan-herman.net/Images/me2003-small.png"/> >> </div> >> >> Which unnecessarily complicates the structure. >> >> There is another issue. There is already deployed RDFa out there. Quite >> a lot, actually. As a consequence, there is a strong requirement of >> backward compatibility in the RDFa WG charter. This also means that if >> the @rev is removed from the core HTML5 document, RDFa will have it >> alongside the RDFa specific attributes like @about or @resource... >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf >> > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 18:23:52 UTC